CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects dependent resources, or has side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly despite its informational shortcomings.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide necessary context about the deletion's impact, parameter usage, or alternatives. It leaves too many questions unanswered for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about the two parameters (connector_id, tenant_id), their meaning, format, or how they relate to the deletion operation. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete an output connector' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (output connector), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'cdp_delete_connector' or 'cdp_delete_output_connector_def'. It lacks specificity about what an 'output connector' is in this context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_delete_connector' or 'cdp_delete_output_connector_def'. The description provides no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for deleting an output connector.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.